Miss C Thomas v First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited — 2024

Miss C Thomas was accepted to be a disabled person with hereditary spastic paraplegia, and the respondent accepted knowledge from January 2021. The tribunal recorded that she worked as on-board staff, that her duties involved preparing and serving food and drink on trains, and that after occupational health reports in 2021 and 2022 she was moved temporarily into administrative work at Holyhead while the respondent sought suitable alternatives. A Crewe administrative role was offered but declined because of the commute, and she was dismissed with notice at an ill-health meeting on 12 October 2022 with an effective date of 20 January 2023.

The claimant withdrew her unfair dismissal and indirect disability discrimination claims, and those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining claims were direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to disciplinary action as alleged, was not required to continue in work that placed her at significant risk, and was not dismissed because she was disabled. It held that she was dismissed because she was certified U2, unfit for her substantive role, and there was no suitable alternative post available to her.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that aspects of the claimant's sickness absence and her difficulty with balance, mobility and serving food and drink arose from her disability. It nevertheless held that the respondent's treatment, including dismissal, was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of maintaining effective and regular customer service and protecting health and safety. The tribunal noted the respondent had sought to retain her through temporary redeployment, occupational health referral and consideration of alternative roles.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal identified attendance and safety-related practices as PCPs but held that the claimant was not disadvantaged by the respondent's safety assessments. It rejected the argument that the claimant had a contractual right to the 'stood off' arrangements, finding those arrangements applied only to drivers and not to on-board staff, because the later contractual terms superseded the earlier Blue Book. The tribunal also held that, even if such an arrangement were treated as a PCP, it would not be a reasonable adjustment because it would not remove a workplace disadvantage and would in substance require the respondent to rewrite the claimant's contract. No monetary award was made because all substantive claims failed or were withdrawn, and the claimant received an ill-health payment and all monies due on termination.